Author: admin

LAHORE:

Anti-Terrorism Court Judge Manzer Ali Gill has observed that the May 9 violence did not qualify as a peaceful protest by any global standard, noting that coordinated attacks were simultaneously carried out across different cities, specifically targeting state buildings, military installations and monuments associated with the armed forces.

Issuing the detailed judgment in the Rahat Bakery case, Judge Gill said evidence showed that party leaders had been involved in hatching a conspiracy in connection with the attacks that followed the arrest of PTI’s founding chairman Imran Khan.

It is pertinent to note that PTI leaders Omer Sarfraz Cheema, Ijaz Chaudhry, Mian Mehmood-ur-Rasheed, Dr Yasmin Rashid and others had been each handed 10-year jail sentences in the case.

The court held that protesting itself was not a crime, but once violence was introduced, it changed the character of a protest.

Judge Gill noted that while citizens around the world protest peacefully, holding placards without taking the law into their own hands, in Pakistan, official buildings and police and military installations across the country came under attack.

He added that in today’s digital age, no incident can be concealed for long and “several clips, snaps and other material are still available at Facebook, YouTube, Twitter, X and TikTok till today. Just by clicking the link, everybody could visualise each and every incident of the tragic moments.”

Defence questions prosecution evidence

During the trial, the defence counsel for the convicted PTI leaders raised more than 100 challenges to the prosecution’s evidence, arguing that it failed to withstand scrutiny.

They noted that none of the accused was named in the initial FIR; there were no descriptions of their identities, no allegations of instigation or provocation, no explanation for the delay in lodging the FIR and glaring inconsistencies in timelines and witness testimony.

Counsel further argued that the prosecution had failed to establish burning of vehicles or property, had withheld CCTV footage and call data records, and had produced digital material, including CDs and USBs, without authentication or playback in court as required under Supreme Court standards, rendering it inadmissible.

They also claimed the conviction amounted to double jeopardy, as it relied on the same evidence and testimony used in other cases.

‘Conspiracy witnesses’ cross-examined

Two prosecution witnesses who claimed to have overheard the alleged conspiracy – Head Constable Muhammad Khalid and Sub-Inspector Hassam Afzal – were subjected to extensive cross-examination.

Khalid conceded that his assignment to monitor PTI leaders at Zaman Park was given orally; that no FIR was registered regarding the alleged conspiracy meetings; that he kept no record of his arrivals or departures; possessed no audio or video evidence; and never returned to the supposed meeting venue with the investigating officer for corroboration.

Likewise, SI Hassam Afzal testified that his duty was issued verbally, that his phone was neither seized nor examined, that he did not carry a mobile during visits to Zaman Park, and that he was unfamiliar with the adjoining residents around Imran Khan’s residence.

He further acknowledged that he had neither recorded any footage nor invited others to observe the meetings.

LONDON/ISLAMABAD:

With speculation rife over a possible 27th Amendment, Deputy Prime Minister and Foreign Minister Ishaq Dar on Monday said there was “no need” for any such constitutional tweak as the country was finally finding its political footing and turning the economic corner.

“We are still digesting the 26th Constitutional Amendment, so there is no need for a 27th right now. The country is running well. There is stability and economic improvement,” the foreign minister said while speaking to reporters in London during his official visit to the United Kingdom.

“We are putting our full attention towards GDP growth and development. Under [Prime Minister] Shehbaz Sharif’s leadership, all efforts are being made,” he added.

The deputy PM added that under former premier Nawaz Sharif’s leadership in 2017 Pakistan had been “the 24th-biggest economy” and the government’s target was to take the economy back to that level.

“We are headed that way very quickly, and we are getting ready to become part of the G20,” he added.

His remarks come against the backdrop of past speculation in legal circles that a 27th amendment might be used to settle unfinished business from the 26th, particularly the proposal for a separate constitutional court.

Although the Islamabad High Court Bar Association had earlier backed the idea of a fresh amendment, Dar’s comments make it clear that, for now, there was no official move to pursue one.

Dar meets British MPs

Separately, the deputy prime minister held a series of meetings with British lawmakers of Pakistani origin.

According to a Foreign Office (FO) statement, Dar met MPs Mohammad Yasin, Tahir Ali, Imran Hussain, Ayoub Khan and Adnan Hussain, stressing the “deep historical and cultural bonds” between Pakistan and the UK, strengthened by the country’s vibrant diaspora.

He highlighted the role of British Pakistanis as a bridge between Islamabad and London and reiterated Pakistan’s commitment to “enhancing bilateral parliamentary exchanges”, noting that such contacts facilitate the sharing of democratic experiences.

Dar also “appreciated the efforts of the MPs to bring greater attention to the issue of human rights violations in occupied Kashmir” and praised them for raising awareness in the UK.

During his London visit, Dar held a meeting with UK Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State Hamish Falconer at the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, in which both sides reviewed bilateral ties, cooperation in areas including economy and climate and exchanged views on regional and global developments.

The deputy PM reaffirmed Pakistan’s commitment to economic reforms and “underscored the importance of the just and peaceful resolution of [the] Jammu and Kashmir Dispute, in accordance with the relevant UN Security Council Resolutions.”

He also met Kashmiri community leaders and inaugurated two services at the Pakistan High Commission in London, the Provision of Land Record Services and the One Window Passport Processing System.

The FO said the land records initiative, developed with the Punjab Land Revenue Authority, would allow British Pakistanis to access property records and deeds in Punjab remotely, using blockchain technology to ensure transparency.

Meanwhile, the passport system will streamline documentation at a single counter, cutting processing time to around 10 minutes per applicant.

ISLAMABAD:

The National Judicial Policy-Making Committee (NJPMC) has approved uniform timelines for the disposal of various categories of civil and criminal cases under a new regime aimed at ensuring speedy justice and reducing case backlogs.

The 54th meeting of the NJPMC—convened on Monday at the Supreme Court of Pakistan under the chairmanship of Chief Justice of Pakistan (CJP) Yahya Afridi—deliberated on key policy issues, while reviewing implementation status of the decisions taken in its 53rd meeting.

The meeting was attended by the chief justices of all the high courts, while Attorney General for Pakistan (AGP) Mansoor Usman Awan attended on special invitation.

According to a detailed press release issued after the meeting, the committee, while acknowledging “the commendable efforts” made by the high courts, laid down specific deadlines for case disposal, ranging from two months to two years depending on the nature of the dispute.

The forum also endorsed the introduction of a double-docket court regime to expedite hearings and strengthen judicial efficiency.

According to the prescribed timelines declaratory suits relating to land disputes are to be decided within 24 months, while inheritance disputes must be resolved in 12 months. Injunction suits on land disputes should conclude within six months.

Recovery suits dealing with public revenue or money matters must be finalized in 12 months, whereas specific performance suits (contract enforcement) should be disposed of within 18 months.

Rent cases are required to be completed in six months while family suits—including matters of dissolution, dower, maintenance, and guardianship—must also be decided in six months. Succession cases (uncontested) are to be wrapped up within two months.

The committee further prescribed timelines for the disposal of execution petitions. It decided that family court decrees will be decided in six months; banking court decrees in 12 months; civil court decrees in 12 months while rent matters will be decided in three months.

On the criminal side, cases involving juvenile offenders under the Juvenile Justice System Act, 2018 will be decided in six months; trials carrying punishment of up to seven years will be concluded in 12 months while trials carrying punishment of more than seven years will be wrapped up in 18 months.

The NJPMC has given 24 months—two years—to trial courts to decide murder trials.

“These timelines would be considered as one of the Key Performance Indicators in Judges Performance Evaluation and would be in-built at the dashboard,” the statement added.

By setting these uniform deadlines, the NJMPC aims to bring consistency to the judicial process and address long-standing concerns over delays in case disposal. Officials said the move reflects the judiciary’s commitment to strengthening the rule of law and enhancing public trust in the justice system.

The NJPMC also unanimously reiterated the need for a comprehensive mechanism for ensuring production of any detained person before the magistrate within 24 hours in order to curb instances of enforced disappearances.

The committee unanimously reiterated its resolve to strengthen institutional capacity, accelerate access to justice, and ensure efficient and effective justice delivery.

It also emphasized the need for a comprehensive mechanism for ensuring production of detained persons before a magistrate within 24 hours. The AGP assured that such a mechanism would be developed and placed before the committee in its next meeting.

The committee also commended the high courts for formulating standard operating procedures (SOPs) to safeguard judicial independence but emphasized the inclusion of stage-wise timelines from complaint filing to final action.

It was decided that all such instances of extraneous influence shall be reported within 24 hours and action thereon shall be finalised within 14 days. The SOPs should also provide for immediate redressal measures to safeguard the dignity of the complainant judge.

Additionally, a reporting mechanism to the CJP was desired for information and intervention, where necessary. The high courts shall notify the SOPs and share the same with the Law and Justice Commission of Pakistan (LJCP).

The committee appreciated the substantial progress achieved by the high courts in strengthening the commercial litigation framework, acknowledging the CLC initiative as a major step toward fostering a robust and efficient commercial litigation framework.

To address the problem of protracted litigation and injunctive orders in commercial, revenue, and fiscal cases, a committee was formed to draft recommendations.

The committee led by Supreme Court judge Shafi Siddiqui, includes Justice Abid Aziz Sheikh of the Lahore High Court, Justice Agha Faisal, of the Sindh High Court, Justice Arshad Ali of the Peshawar High Court, the AGP and the Federal Board of Revenue (FBR) chairman.

“The committee shall also examine the suggestion of the AGP in respect of issues arising out of Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards and place its recommendations in the next meeting,” the statement said.

The NJPMC expressed its appreciation for the progress made by the SHC and the PHC in establishing model criminal trial courts. It noted that these efforts would significantly contribute to enhancing access to justice and ensure its effective and timely delivery.

It was further observed that such initiatives reflect strong institutional commitment to continuous improvement for making the justice system citizen-centric.

The forum, while appreciating the efforts made by the LHC in establishing model civil courts, decided that the high courts may pilot the initiative for oldest civil cases in chronological order.

“The high courts may determine the number of model civil courts in each district keeping in view the number of target cases. The district and session judges may assign such cases to model civil courts under a time bound trial regime,” it added.

The committee also deliberated on jail reforms and resolved to share the reports of Provincial Sub-Committees and the Prison Reform Action Plan with the high courts for input. A National Prison Policy will be formulated and placed before the next meeting.

ISLAMABAD:

As the heads of all superior courts have agreed to evolve a mechanism to end external interference, debate has begun on how effective the high court SOPs will be in curbing extraneous influence without adjudicating the 26th Constitutional Amendment, which, by admission, increased the executive’s influence in judicial appointments and the selection of constitutional benches (CBs).

The National Judicial (Policy Making) Committee (NJPMC), comprising all chief justices, on Monday commended the high courts for formulating SOPs—Standard Operating Procedures—for judicial independence. The SOPs are expected to be notified soon.

Lawyers are questioning how external interference can end when NJPMC members themselves are beneficiaries of executive influence in the judiciary.

There is a strong perception that, without executive support, neither a lawyer can be appointed as a judge nor can a superior court judge be elevated to the apex court or a constitutional bench after the 26th Constitutional Amendment.

“There is an English idiom that fits here perfectly. It is when you close the stable door after the horse has bolted. Except here, the horse hasn’t just bolted; the stable roof has also collapsed.

“Although I’m glad Justice Dogar of the Islamabad High Court (IHC) was present in the meeting which decided once and for all to end the menace of external interference,” said Abdul Moiz Jaferii Advocate, while commenting on the NJPMC meeting to safeguard judges from outside pressure.

Another lawyer asked how independence can be secured when judges not in the good books of the executive have been sidelined and excluded from benches hearing important cases.

Former additional attorney general Waqar Rana said interference is just one manifestation of undermining judicial independence.

“Where appointments are subservient to the executive after the 26th Amendment, the policy notification issued by the Supreme Court may unfortunately look like a charade to the legal community.

“The chief justice, in order to truly ensure independence of the judiciary and stop interference, must take the first overdue courageous step and list the case of the 26th Amendment before the full court. Anything else will be viewed as window dressing,” he added.

Taking advantage of the delay in adjudicating petitions against the 26th Amendment, executive authorities have successfully inducted more than three dozen judges in the high courts.

There is also a perception that court-packing of the high courts has already taken place. The situation has also changed in the apex court after the amendment.

Likewise, the executive initiated the transfer of judges from different high courts to the IHC. The real purpose of those transfers, critics say, was to prevent a senior judge from becoming IHC chief justice.

Although CJP Yahya Afridi had reservations about the seniority of the transferred judges, the executive managed to appoint Justice Sardar Muhammad Sarfraz Dogar as IHC CJ.

Despite his efforts, CJP Afridi could not secure approval from the Judicial Commission of Pakistan (JCP) for the appointment of Justice Miangul Hassan as the IHC chief justice.

Similarly, government authorities opposed the appointment of the senior-most judges of the Peshawar High Court and the Balochistan High Court as chief justices because they were not “like-minded.”

The government thus succeeded, and the senior-most judges of both high courts were superseded by the JCP without valid reason.

Senior judges, including CJP Afridi, supported elevating Lahore High Court Chief Justice Aalia Neelum to the apex court. However, the government wanted her to continue as LHC CJ. The executive representatives in the JCP did not vote for her elevation.

Incumbent Sindh High Court Chief Justice Junaid Ghaffar has also not been selected for the CB in the high court because the executive representatives in the JCP did not vote for him.

Most significantly, the executive ignored the two senior-most judges of the apex court for the appointment of the CJP because they were not aligned with the present regime.

Interestingly, the NJPMC has approved a committee comprising judges, the attorney general for Pakistan, and the FBR chairman to address protracted litigation and injunctive orders in commercial, revenue, and fiscal cases.

Questions are being raised about the inclusion of the FBR chairman in the committee. Recently, CJP Afridi met with the finance minister to discuss tax-related reforms.

It is an open secret that the superior judiciary has failed to deal with external interference since six IHC judges wrote to the Supreme Judicial Council (SJC) last year. Since their letter, the judges have faced different forms of harassment, with proxy complaints filed against them in the SJC.

A senior lawyer said the surrender in the six judges’ letter case laid the foundation, and the 26th Constitutional Amendment was a mere formality. When Malik Shahzad Ahmad Khan was LHC CJ, he sent a report to the SC regarding harassment of an ATC judge. The matter is still pending in the SC.

There is a need to assess the performance of the judiciary in the aftermath of the 26th Amendment. Debate continues about the performance of the CBs.